Before discussing bits and tasks in some detail, it is important to point out that Stanislavsky used different terminology for these concepts at different points in his life. In order to better understand all these and other terms discussed in this dissertation, Merlin’s reproduction of Lewis’s chart, an overview of Stanislavsky’s System, is included as Appendix A. Appendix B is Benedetti’s chart and illustrates the terms Stanislavsky employed at different points in his career. Appendix C is a chart created by the author of this dissertation that organizes terms of Stanislavsky and the four principal teachers in relation to one another. These charts will help the reader to understand and compare the terms used for a particular concept by each figure discussed in this dissertation.
Not only did Stanislavsky use various terms at different points of his career, Elizabeth Hapgood used different terms herself in the first English-language translations. For example, she translated Stanislavsky’s literal term bit as “unit.” To further complicate matters, the term bit is commonly referred to by theatre practitioners as “beat,” which carries different but related meaning in English. Carnicke discussed the thinking behind this translation conundrum when she stated, “In the United States, this term [bit] has been transformed into ‘beats,’ which may derive from ‘bits’ of the play strung together like ‘beads’ on a necklace when pronounced by Russian émigré teachers” (Stanislavsky 171). However, Bella Merlin and Benedetti used the term bit. Therefore, for consistency the term bit will be used in this study.
Lewis acknowledged the importance of the concept of bits and tasks. He defined bits as the distance from the beginning to the end of an action. He also referenced tasks as being the
goals the character tries to achieve within a bit. Despite the difference in terms, it is evident that Lewis understood Stanislavsky’s concepts of bits and tasks.
Strasberg used the term problem in place of tasks, but for him the word problem implied anything that inferred with the internal or external expression of the role. The underlying difference between Adler and Stanislavsky is one of terminology difference without a specific definition; Adler never specifically used the terms bits and tasks. Therefore, although in certain instances she used the term action to mean task, it is not certain that Adler meant task in Stanislavsky’s sense. Although Meisner, for his part, felt that tasks as such were imperative, and his very definition of acting implied the centrality of the concept; nevertheless, he did not specifically use the term task. His vocabulary used the term doing: “The foundation of acting is the reality of doing” (Meisner and Longwell 16). On the other hand, his vocabulary did not include the terms bit or task because he felt that doing so would lead to over intellectualizing.
Stanislavsky also identified the following subdivisions of tasks, which will also be used in this study: unnecessary and necessary tasks, physical tasks, everyday tasks, basically psychological tasks, psychological tasks, creative tasks, conscious tasks and unconscious tasks. As with the concepts of action and imagination previously discussed, the research suggests that Lewis had the most agreement and fewest differences when compared to Stanislavsky’s concepts.
Stanislavsky
In An Actor’s Work: A Student’s Diary, Stanislavsky used a colorful simile to introduce the concept of bits. A full length play is likened to a whole roasted turkey, which cannot be eaten whole but must be carved into bits to be eaten one small bit at a time. Similarly, a full length play cannot be tackled in its entirety (135-136). It must be broken down into manageable sections,
which Stanislavsky termed bits. Tortsov says, “The technique of dividing into Bits is quite simple. Just ask yourself, ‘What is the one essential thing in the play?’ and then start to recall the main stages, without going into detail” (141). It is essential to divide the play into bits because a specific performance task is contained in and required for each bit (142).
After introducing bits, Stanislavsky introduces tasks. Benedetti explains that Stanislavsky defined tasks as the character’s needs (110). In An Actor’s Work: A Student’s Diary, Tortsov’s student learns that an actor can have “large, medium-size and small, primary and secondary tasks which can be merged into each other” and in merging they create a “fairway” (143). It is this fairway, (i.e., through-action) that guides the actor “during the performances” (314). Just as people in life have tasks and perform actions to fulfill them, it is the same for the stage. Tortsov states, “Theatre consists in staging major human Tasks and the genuine, productive and purposeful actions necessary to fulfill them” (143-144). By uncovering the tasks and performing actions to fulfill them, actors cease to merely pretend to be their characters, no; they psycho- physically perform the character’s very actions. This process Stanislavsky called “living through” or “experiencing.” Tortsov confirms this by stating, “Tasks make an actor conscious of his right to go onstage, and live his own life, one parallel to the role” (144).
First, the actor must determine which tasks are “necessary” and “unnecessary” (145). Tortsov lists eight guidelines with which to determine a necessary task. Necessary tasks are: (1) “related to the play,” (2) “right for the actor as a person” and true to the character as well. In addition, necessary tasks (3) aid the actor in achieving “the basic goal of acting, the creation of the life of the human spirit in the role,” (4) “drive the role forward,” (5) are believable not only to the actor himself but also to the other actors in the play as well as the audience; (6) are inspiring to the actor and “are capable of stimulating experiencing,” (7) are “typical of a role”
and “precisely” related to a play’s meaning, and (8) “are rich and correspond to the deeper meaning of the role” (145). By these means, actors will come to understand the relative importance of their character’s individual tasks and be confident they are indeed “necessary” for the character (145).
Tortsov also suggests further subdivisions: physical tasks, everyday tasks, basic psychological tasks, psychological tasks, and creative tasks (145). Physical tasks are what Tortsov also calls “physical actions” (147). For example, pouring someone a glass of wine is a physical task. Tortsov says that coming into a room, saying hello, and shaking hands with someone are examples of everyday tasks, i.e., “Psychology has nothing to do with them” (145). However, if someone tries to shake Tortsov’s hand while expressing an emotion such as respect, this is referred to as a “basic psychological” task because it has a noticeable motive behind it (146). Next, there is the psychological task which “requires a lot of forethought and feeling” and there is “a lot of resistance to overcome” before it can be achieved (146). In other words, the motive is substantial, psychologically speaking. Regardless, Tortsov insists that the most important thing is that the task excites the actors and compels them to achieve their tasks (146). Tasks such as this are referred to by Tortsov as genuinely creative, because they stimulate the “will to create” (146). As all tasks should stimulate the actor’s will to create, all tasks should be genuinely creative.
Finally, Tortsov states a fundamental rule: physical and psychological tasks cannot be separated from one another (147). In other words, all tasks are ultimately psychophysical, at least to some degree. “In every physical, in every psychological Task and its fulfillment,” he says, “there’s a great deal of the other. There’s no way you can separate them” (147). Just as in life itself, there is no division of body and mind in acting. Every physical task contains a
psychological, inner motive, and every psychological task must lead to a physical task. Tortsov says, “Carrying out a physical task truthfully helps you create the right psychologicalstate. It transforms a physical task into a psychological one. As I have already told you, any physical Task can be given a psychological base” (147).
To determine the physical task for each bit of the play, Tortsov recommends that each bit should be given a name that reflect its meaning (147). It is important to note that bits are defined with a noun phrase (i.e. “mother-love”), but tasks are defined with a verb that leads to reciprocal action (148-149). Also, Tortsov says it is helpful to place the phrase “I want” before the verb (i.e. “I want to take hold of them and never let go”) (149). In this way, actors are better able to feel the action as something to be done (149). Tortsov reminds actors that the most important thing about tasks is that they should “excite” the actors, because if they are excited by their actions, their enthusiasm will be conveyed to the audience (151).
Robert Lewis
Before Lewis’s ideas of bits and tasks can be discussed, it is important to clarify the terminology that he used because it is different from that of Stanislavsky. Lewis uses the term “beat” for bit and “problem” for task. Hereafter, Stanislavsky’s term will be followed with a slash and then by the term Lewis used, i.e. bit/beat. When Lewis is directly quoted, however, his term will be followed by Stanislavsky’s term in brackets, i.e. “beats” [bits].
Lewis recognized that each action/intention contains bits/beats and he believed that every role should be divided into bits/beats, which he defined as “the distance from the beginning to the end of an intention [action]” (Method 33). Lewis, like Stanislavsky, also compared the role of bits/beats to that of “phrases in music” (33).
For example: suppose I was going “to stick-up” a party and I had to come into the room where the party was going on “to case the joint.” That is my main intention [action] in the scene. First, when the butler opens the door, I study him and the way he takes my hat and I figure it’s a pretty rich apartment; this is part one in my “casing the joint.” Next, I look into the room, checking over the furnishings and observing what kind of people are there. That’s the next little “problem” [task] I have within the main intention [action]. Then I see the hostess and I study her from a distance—and her necklace […]. Anyway, the point is that my main desire “to case the joint” is fulfilled by the successful execution of these various small “problems” [tasks]. (34-35).
Actors should identify the main action/intention within a scene and then identify all the tasks/problems they encounter while trying to fulfill those actions/intentions. They should continue performing each task until it is fulfilled, interrupted, or thwarted (35). For Lewis, then, it would seem that action/intention is primarily internal, while task/problem is primarily external. Stanislavsky stated that a psychological task is contained within every physical task and vice versa, and Lewis said virtually the same thing. For Lewis, an inner action/intention leads inexorably to a task/problem. Lewis said, “You always have to find some inner justification for doing it—which in a way brings us back to our old friend Stanislavsky—because, after all, our behavior does not come just from the outside, but from the inside” (Marowitz 82).
In Method-or Madness?, however, he also described how he treated action/intention in rehearsal. As a director, he helped actors to find their actions/intentions for every moment of the play, generally by encouraging them to simply “talk and listen” to one another, an exercise that helped actors to understand what their characters wanted from one another (Lewis, Method 143). Lewis also divided his scripts into bits/beats, and gave them each titles (146). As rehearsal work continued, Lewis continually used blocking to guide actors in finding their actions/intentions throughout the play (147).
Lewis not only used bits/beats and tasks/problems in his directing but also in his teaching. According to Ellermann, Lewis taught: “The play—the situations are created by conflicting ‘wants’ [tasks] and that creates the drama in performance!” (Ellermann, “7th Class”). When characters in the play each have different tasks/problems, conflict, the source of drama, is created.
Clearly Lewis’s idea of bits/beats and tasks/problems closely mirrors Stanislavsky’s. They both believed that actors should first identify the main action and then identify all of the tasks/problems encountered while trying to fulfill this action. Lewis, like Stanislavsky, utilized bits/beats and tasks/problems in the classroom, rehearsals and when directing (Method 143). Like Stanislavsky, too, Lewis also broke the script into bits/beats, and gave titles to each bit/beat (146).
The primary difference between Lewis and Stanislavsky is that of vocabulary. To make matters even more complicated, Lewis said that action/intention specifically refers to inner action, not physical action (29).However, whenever Lewis referred to inner action there was the implication that it would result in physical action (Ellermann, Telephone).
In his notes from Clurman’s lectures Lewis stated, “Actions [i.e. intentions] from start to finish are called beats (bar lines) [i.e. bits]. The play can be carried on by the right actions even when emotions are absent” (Lewis, “Clurman Notes”). Although Lewis’s terminology is often confusing, it is significant that even as Clurman continued to use the term action, Lewis used the word intention in its place after leaving the Group.
He explained his reasons for this:
This word “Action” as used here in 1934 was the term we employed in the Group Theatre, too. (Of course it meant inner action—not physical action.) If you have read the books, you know it is translated by Mrs.
Hapgood as “Objective.” […]. These days some refer to “Action” as “Intention.” (Lewis, Method 29)
Thus, for Lewis the term action meant inner action, which automatically induces physical action. Ellermann stated, “Whenever Lewis said action he meant inner action and the implication of what you are doing” (Ellermann, Telephone). Apparently, Lewis considered inner action and outer action to be inseparable, because inner action automatically induces the corresponding physical action. Although Lewis’s terminology is different, his thinking here is still consistent with Stanislavsky.
Despite the difference in terms, Lewis considered it important to call attention to the concept of action/intention in itself:
It has been called many things in many books and some people don’t call it anything; but it is a process that is going on, if they are really acting. I myself don’t care if you call it spinach, if you know what it is, and do it, because it is one of the most important elements in acting (Method 29).
Lewis may have used different terms from Stanislavsky, but he shared Stanislavsky’s belief that actors must understand the thinking behind the concepts of action/intention, bits/beats and tasks/problems.
Lee Strasberg
According to Lola Cohen, Strasberg’s former student and author of the Lee Strasberg
Notes, Strasberg and Stanislavsky shared a similar understanding of the term “problem” (xxvii).
For example, one time Strasberg employed the term problem in response to an acting student who rationalized the outcome of an exercise on the basis of the successful use of concentration (Strasberg, Strasberg At 159). Strasberg said:
Everything involves concentration! The kind of concentration you use has value only in terms of the problem. Now if you will please tell me the problem, I will tell you what to do. I don’t know what you have in mind. You wanted to do something. What did you want to do and why? (159).
In this context, it seems that Strasberg’s understanding of the term problem was comparable to Stanislavsky’s task. If this assumption is indeed accurate, then there would seem to be a similarity between the thinking of Strasberg and Stanislavsky on this point—that actors must have a task, meaning a problem they have to solve.
Yet, Cohen said that for Strasberg the term problem meant “obstacles or blocks that impede the actor’s physical or emotional expression” (xxvii). Thus, it would seem that Strasberg’s use of problem is actually different from that of Stanislavsky’s use of task. As a result, Strasberg did not, or could not, speak of the several subdivisions of tasks that Stanislavsky found so useful, i.e., unnecessary and necessary tasks, physical tasks, everyday tasks, basically psychological, psychological, creative tasks, conscious tasks and unconscious tasks.
Stella Adler
Adler’s concept of bits and tasks is ambiguous. Her use of the term action seems comparable to the term task, at least in context it appears so. For example, “An action is something you always give yourself and is something you can do. You define the object of your action, and you make it something you can handle” (Adler 56). Because she said that an action is something actors can do, it is logical to assume that she used the term action to also mean task in Stanislavsky’s sense.
Adler also spoke of tasks as verbs: “When we study a script, we’re trying to find what actions it requires of us. When we’re performing these actions—whether it be ‘to teach’ or ‘to learn’ or ‘to escape’ or ‘to pray’ or ‘to beg’—we communicate the nature of the action to the audience” (86-87). If indeed Adler used the term action synonymously with the term task, then the assumption can be made that her ideas about tasks are comparable to Stanislavsky.
The underlying difference between Adler and Stanislavsky is that Adler spoke of action and not of bits and tasks. Additionally, Adler, unlike Stanislavsky, did not speak of unnecessary and necessary tasks, everyday tasks, basically psychological, psychological, creative tasks, conscious tasks and unconscious tasks.
Sanford Meisner
Meisner did not use the terms bits and tasks. He explained his reasoning: “My approach is based on bringing the actor back to his emotional impulses and to acting that is firmly rooted in the instinctive. It is based on the fact that all good acting comes from the heart, as it were, and there’s no mentality in it” (Meisner and Longwell 37). Even though he did not specifically use the term, Meisner felt that it was imperative, however, that the actors have tasks. His very definition of acting implies that it is based on the concept of the task, “The foundation of acting is the reality of doing.” Furthermore, Meisner stipulated, “If you do something, you really do it!” (16-17). Actors must really do, or have as their task, what their characters want at every moment of the play.
Meisner had two rules for actors: 1) “Don’t do anything unless something happens to make you do it,” and 2) “What you do doesn’t depend on you; it depends on the other fellow” (34). Just as Tortsov tells the actors that the use of an objective task can put a stop to merely pretending, Meisner stated, “So you don’t have to play at being the character, it is right there in your doing it” (24). Because the actors are really trying to achieve their tasks, they do not have to worry about pretending.
Meisner master teacher Larry Silverberg, like Stanislavsky, used the term beats in place of the term bits. He defined a bit/beat as “a unit of action” or the distance between the beginning